so I conclude that mortall and veniall sinnes as they be such are not distinguished intrinse cally and essentially but onely in respect of Gods grace which assigneth one sinne to the paine or torture of death and not another Thus writeth this famous popish bishop who was a man of high esteeme in the counsell of Constance Whose onely testimonie if his words be well marked is able to confound the papists and to strike them dead For first he telleth them plainely that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature Secondly that no sinne is veniall saue only in respect of Gods mercie Thirdly that God may most iustly iustissimè condeme vs for the least sinne we do Note seriously gentle reader the word iustissimè Fourthly that mortall and veniall sinnes are the same intrinse cally and essentially and differ but accidentally that is to say they differ in accident but not in nature in quantitie but not in qualitie in mercy but not in deformitie in the subiect but not in the obiect in imputation but not in enormitie saue onely that the one is a greater mortall sinne than is the other For as Gerson auoucheth we may iustly be damned for the least sinne of all howsoeuer other papists doe flatter themselues in their cursed deformed venials Seuenthly because sinne in generall is the transgression of Gods law as S. Ambrose defineth it yea euery word deed or desire against Gods law as S. Austen describeth it Their words are set downe in the fourth article of this discourse Eightly because the Iesuit Bellarmine vnawares confesseth the same against himselfe These are his owne words Respondeo omne peccatum esse contra legem dei non positiuam sed aternam vt Aug. rectè docet Omnis enim iusta lex siue à deo siue ab bomine detur ab aterna dei lege deriuatur Est enim aterna lex vt malum sit viol are regulam I answere that euery sinne is against the law of God not positiue but eternall as Austen teacheth rightly For euery iust law whether it be given of God or of man is deriued from the eternal law of God For the eternall law is that it is euill to offend against the rule These are our Iesuits owne words which as euery child can easily discerne doe euidently confute himselfe and his Romish doctrine For first vnder euery sinne must needs be contained their veniall sinnes or els some sinnes shall be no sinnes which implieth flat contradiction Secondly he telâ—eth vs that euery sinne and consequently veniall sinnes are against the eternall law of God Thirdly he graunteth that they are not onely besides the law sed contra legem but euen against the law Fourthly hence it is cleere and euident that the law eternall is the chiefe and principall law of all other laws seeing from it all other lawes are deriued Ninthly because the papists cannot possibly yeeld any sound reason why in the sinnes of theft one shall be mortall and another veniall For example sake let vs suppose one at one time to steale so many egs as will make a mortall sinne by Romish doctrine another at another time to steale so many as will make a venial sinne by the same doctrine then I demaund of our papists Why God cannot iustly condemne the theefe to hell that stealeth but so many egs and for all that can iustly condemne him to eternall torment that stealeth but one only egge aboue the said number For this must they doe and a good reason here of must they yeeld which I am well assured they can neuer do or els confesse euery sinne to be mortall and so against their wils to subscribe to mine opinion Answere ô papists if ye can if ye cannot then repent for shame and yeeld vnto the truth The seuenth Article Of popish vnwritten traditions THe papists beare the world in hand that many things necessarie for mans saluation are not conteined in the holy scriptures of the old and new testament and consequently that none can be saued but such as beleeue their vnwritten traditions and what their Pope telleth them For the exact knowledge whereof I put downe these propositions The first Proposition with the first reason THe written word or holy scripture containeth in it selfe euery doctrine necessarie for mans saluation I prooue it by the manifold texts both of the old and new testament by the authoritie of the holy fathers and by the the testimonie of renowned and best approoued popish writers Ex testamente veteri Locus primus Ye shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you neither shall ye take any thing away from it Againe thus That which I command that only doe thou to the Lord. Neither add any thing nor take any thing away Againe thus Only be thou strong and of a valiant courage that thou mayest obserue and doe according to all the law which Moses my seruant hath coÌ„manded thee Thou shalt not turne away from it neither to the right hand nor to the left Bee carefull that ye keepe all things which are written in the booke of the law of Moses that ye decline not from them neither to the right hand nor to the left By these manifold texts we may see euidently that the holy scriptures are most perfect and that nothing may bee taken from them neither any thing added to them But doubtlesse if all doctrine necessarie for mans saluation were not sufficiently conteined in them then of necessitie many things should be added to them Bellarmine the mouth of all papists answereth to these and the like places that they are not spoken of the written word precisely but of Gods word generally which is partly written and partly vnwritten Non ait inquit ille ad verbum quod scripsi sed quod ego precipio He saith not quoth our Iesuite to the word which I haue written but which I command But doublesse this is a miserable shift and a very childish answere For first God himselfe wrote his owne wordes in two tables of stone and then deliuered them to Moses Yea after Moses had broken the said tables in his vehement zeale against Idolatrie God commanded Moses to hew two other tables of stone like to the first in which he writ againe the wordes that were in the first tables and commanded Moses to put them vp in an arke of wood Secondly Moses expounded the law of God to the Israelites at large VVhich large explication of the law God himselfe commanded him to write and to giue the same to the Israelites that they might put it in the side of the arke of the couenant and there keepe it for a witnesse against them Thirdly God commanded Iosue to keepe and obserue all things which were written in the booke of the law which Moses had deliuered to the Leuites charging him to meditate therein day and night that he might doe according to the same Fourthly Moses telleth
once which implieth contradiction Aquinas graunteth this illation these are his words Ideo si in illo triduo mortis fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum non fuisset ibi anima Christi Therefore during Christs death if this sacrament had been celebrated the soule of Christ should not haue been in it Secondly if this popish kind of doctrine were true these absurdities and grosse impieties must perforce follow hereupon viz. that Christ the night before he was crucified was both sitting at the table and borne in his own hands both liuing and dead both visible and inuisible both long and short both broad and narrow both light and heauie that he was a sacrifice for our sinnes before he died for our sinnes that his sacrifice was either vnperfect in the former oblation in his last supper or els that it was needlesse in his bitter immolation vpon the altar of the crosse For as the Apostle telleth vs Christ was not to offer himselfe often as the high priest did but once to the destruction of sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe These are his words as the papists our English Rhemists I meane haue put them downe and as it is appointed to men to die once and after this the iudgement so also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sinnes of many Loe Christ died but once and that one oblation was sufficient to take away all sinnes in the world The word exhaust which the Rhemists vse doth significantly expresse so much But the words of S. Paul in another place are most manifest and doe plainely conuince this truth In the which will saith S. Paule we are made holy euen by the offering of the bodie of Iesus Christ once for all Againe thus But this man after he hath offered one sacrifice for sinnes is set downe for euer on the right hand of God Againe in these words For with one offering hath he made perfect for euer them that are sanctified Loe gentle reader Christ saith Christs apostle made but one oblation Christ say the papists hath made many and still maketh moe oblations Christ saith Christs Apostle died but once on the crosse Christ say the papists dieth euery day in the masse Christ saith Christ apostle made perfect finished and consummated mans redemption with one onely sacrifice Christ say the papists doth perfect and consummate his with the daily sacrifice of the masse Now whether Christs apostle or our papists be of better credit let the indifferent reader iudge Thirdly the cup is the new testament in my bloud saith Christ which is shed for you But a testament is not of force without the death of the testator as S. Paul teacheth vs. And consequently either Christs bodie was not really offered in his supper or at least it was a sacrifice of no force value or efficacie at all for that it was not yet ratified by the death of the testator Hereupon it followeth of necessitie that when Christ saith in S. Luke This cup is the new testament in my bloud and in S. Matthew This is my bloud of the new Testament the sence is all one most plaine and cleare viz. that the cup is a sacrament of the bloud of Christ and of the new Testament confirmed thereby but indeed is no more really the bloud of Christ it selfe than it is really the new testament it selfe For the expresse mention of remission of sinnes is referred to the bloud of Christ shed vpon the crosse and not to the sacrament of his bloud seeing his bloud was not shed in his supper but in his bitter passion Fourthly the Apostle saith flatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is not henceforth any oblation for sinne But if Saint Paule say truly that there is no oblation for sinne after Christs death on the crosse then doubtlesse the papists must needs say falsely that they haue a daily propitiatorie sacrifice in their popish masse Neither will it serue their turne to answere that it is the selfesame sacrifice of the crosse but offered in another manner for if that were true then should their masse-sacrifice be of infinit value which for all that no papist dareth auouch Nay Bellarmine saith in plaine tearmes Valor sacrificij missae finitus est The value or worth of the masse is finit not infinit And yet if the value of the masse be not infinit then doubtlesse that sacrifice cannot be the sonne of God for he is of infinit power of infinit maiestie of infinit value Yea whosoeuer denieth Christs bodie and bloud subsisting in the person of God by hypostaticall vnion to be of infinit value he is become a flat Arrian beleeuing Christ to be pure man and not God And consequently the papists howsoeuer they thinke or speake of their masse yet in making it a sacrifice they must perforce be blasphemous against the sonne of God Again Bellarmine confesseth against himselfe vnawares and against an article of popish faith That their popish masse is not verè propriè truly and properly propitiarie Quod Christus nunc immortalis nec mereri nec satisfacere potest Because saith Bellarmine Christ now being immortall can neither merit nor satisfie But I am well assured that their holy late councell of Trent teacheth otherwise These are the words Et quoniam in diuino hoc sacrificio quod in missa peragitur idem ille Christus continetur incruentè immolatur qui in ara crucis semel seipsum cruentè obtulit docet sanctasynodus sacrificium istud verè propitiatorium esse And because in this diuine sacrifice which is made in the masse that same Christ is contained and offered vnbloudily who on the altar of the crosse once offered himselfe bloudily the holy councell teacheth it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice truly indeed Loe how the papists say and vnsay one while it is truly a propitiatorie sacrifice another while it cannot truly be so called VVell the Pope hath allowed Bellarmines doctrine and he hath also allowed the Councell and yet wise men can see how they flatly disagree and that in the highest point of their melodie Fiftly the Popes owne decrees doe seale vp this truth against the Pope these are his words Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius viz. quod visibile quod palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipso immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio sic sacrum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As therefore the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after it manner called the bodie of Christ when indeed it is the sacrament of Christs bodie of that bodie which is visible which is palpable mortall and nailed on the crosse and that oblation of flesh which is made
by the hands of the priest is called Christs passion death crucifixion not in the truth of the thing but in a mysterie which signifieth the thing so the sacrament of faith by which baptisme is vnderstood is faith Thus saith the text Let vs now heare their own glosse vpon the same text these are the expresse words Coeleste sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significate mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significatur The heauenly sacrament which representeth Christs flesh truly is called the bodie of Christ but vnproperly wherefore it is said suo modo after it manner but not in the truth of the thing but in the mysterie of the thing signified that this may be the sence it is called Christs bodie that is to say it signifieth his bodie Out of these golden words deliuered as God would haue it by the pens of papists to the confusion of all papists I note first that the holy and blessed bread of the Eucharist or Lords supper is called the bodie of Christ. Secondly that it is also called the passion death of Christ. Thirdly that it is not Christs bodie truly properly and in the truth of the thing Fourthly that it is Christs body as the sacrament of baptisme is faith Fifthly that it is not Christs bodie in truth but in signification Sixtly that it is only called Christs bodie because it is the sacrament of his body as baptisme is called faith being only the sacrament of faith Seuenthly that it is Christs bodie impropriè suo modo significat◠mysterio improperly after a sort in the mysterie of the thing signified which words must be well remembred and marked Lastly that it is said negatiuely non rei veritate it is not Christs bodie in truth in deed or in the veritie of the thing These words are the very vpshot of the controuersie they can admit no solution For if Christs bodie were in the sacrament really and substantially with bodie flesh bloud sinews bones and quantitie as the papists say and beleeue then doubtlesse he should be there in rei veritate in the truth of the thing euen in that true bodie which was borne of the blessed virgin the true mother of true God and true man Answere papists if ye can or els come home and yeeld to the truth for shame The third Member Of the barbarous and plaine villanous proceeding against Berengarius for deniall of the abouenamed popish sacrifice POpish decrees tell vs a long tale of one Berengarius sometime deacon of a church in Gaunt who held a doctrine surely grounded vpon the holy scriptures but wholie opposite to the late popish faith viz. That the bread and wine in the holy Eucharist after Christs words vttered which they call consecration are onely the sacrament and not the true bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and that they cannot sensuallie or sensibly for so their owne word sensualiter signifieth bee handled or broken with the hands of the priests or torne with the teeth of the faithfull For this opinion so setled vpon Gods word as all the cursed Romish brood are not able in truth to gainesay the same Pope Nicholas with his Romish synod did so cruelly proceed against the sillie deacon as he must needs either abiure and renounce the truth or else betake himselfe to be burnt with popish fire and faggot out of hand In regard whereof the poore deacon ouercome with humane frailtie yeelded at least in shew of wordes to their most wicked cruell and very barbarous or rather villanous suggestion Then the Pope and Councell set downe the forme of words which he should pronounce the summe whereof I haue alreadie alleaged who as list may read the words at large in the place quoted in the margent I omit the wordes because they are long and tedious onely I wish the reader to obserue seriously with me for this reason can neuer be answered till the worlds end that it is an article of popish faith oh horrible blasphemie That the true and reall body of the sonne of God which was borne of the vigin Marie and sitteth at the right hand of God the father omnipotent and all sufficient is torne in pieces with the teeth of the faithfull and broken asunder with the hands of the priest in their idolatrous masse For these are the words of the popish synod Manibus sacerdotum frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Which wordes are so fully farced with blasphemie and repugnant to the truth that neither Melchior Canus nor the popish glosse nor Bellarmine can tell how to shuffle vp the same but with shame inough they passe it ouer as they can Bellarmine who is as it were the Popes owne mouth writeth in this manner Respondeo nunquam fuisse quaestionem an Christi corpus vere vt est in se frangeretur manibus dentibus tereretur certum enim est semper fuit Christi corpus incorruptibile nunc existens non posse frangi teri nisi in signo siue sacramento ita vt dicatur frangi ac teri cum signum eius id est species panis frangitur teritur I answere saith the Iesuite that question was neuer made if the body of Christ as it is in it selfe were truely broken with hands and torne with teeth for it is and and euer was certaine and sure that Christs bodie being now incorruptible cannot be broken and torne saue only in a signe or sacrament so as it may be said to be broken and torne when the signe thereof that is to say the forme of bread is broken and torne Out of these words I note first that by the Popes owne doctrine for the Iesuites doctrine is the doctrine of the Pope seeing the Pope hath approoued it Christs bodie cannot be broken or torne truely and indeede I note secondly that the Pope and his Councell decreed the contrarie doctrine and that as an article of popish faith when they compelled Berengarius to confesse it with his mouth and to beleeue it with his heart and did also publish the same per vrbes Italiae Germaniae Galliae through the cities of Italie France and Germanie for so saith the decree Ego Berengarius I note thirdly that it is truely said Christs bodie is broken because the forme of the bread is broken as popish doctrine teacheth vs. For we see here that this is all that the papists can say for themselues and vpon this strong foundation and inuincible bulwarke I inferre this golden and euident corollarie viz. That if it be true to say Christs bodie is broken and torne because the signe of his bodie is broken and torne then truely may wee say and truelie doe we say that Christs bodie is in the Eucharist because the signe of his bodie is there because the sacrament of his bodie
may not onely truly but also iustly require reward at Gods hands in regard of his promise freely made vnto vs. But I euer denie withall that any reward is due to our best workes for any condigne merit or desert of or in our workes Gods free acceptation mercie and promise set apart For as Saint Austen grauely saith Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the best liuer vpon earth if thou examine his life thy mercy set apart Answere ô papists if ye can and if ye cannot then repent and yeeld vnto the truth for shame I challenge you I prouoke you to the combat I adiure you all ioyntlie and euery one of you seuerally for the credite of your cause for the honour of your Pope and the life of popish doctrine which now lieth bleeding and wil shortly yeeld vp the Ghost if some soueraigne remedie bee not speedily prouided for the same The sixt Article Of the Popish distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes ALthough it be true that all sinnes are not equall but one greater than another and although it be also true that in a good and godly sence some sinne may be tearmed mortall and some veniall which yet may more fitly be called sinnes regnant and not regnant neuerthelesse most true it is to the euerlasting confusion of all impenitent papists that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and onely veniall by way of Gods free acceptation and mercie for his owne name sake and merits of his deare sonne our Lord Iesus I prooue it first both briefely and euidently For Christ himselfe telleth vs in his holy Gospell that we must giue a straight account of euery idle word in the generall day of iudgement And for no other end doubtlesse must this account be made but onely because euery idle word is flatly against the law of God This the papists can neuer denie it is euident to euery child And yet must they likewise confesse that idle words be those sinnes which they call venials And consequently they must confesse against their wils and against their professed Romish doctrine that all sinnes are mortall that is to say against the law of God This doctrine of our Sauiour Christ Iesus is confirmed by the testimonie of S. Iohn his beloued Apostle where he telleth vs that euery sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the transgression of Gods law as is alreadie prooued at large in the fourth article of concupiscence And the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a declining from the right way doth plainely confirme the same Secondly because our popish Rhemists confesse in plaine tearms that euery sinne is a swaruing from the law of God For doubtlesse that which swarueth from the law is truly said to be against the law but not agreeable to the law Thirdly because the famous popish Frier and Romish bishop Iosephus Angles teacheth the same doctrine in his booke dedicated to the Pope himselfe These are his own expresse words Omne peccatum veniale est alicuius legis transgressio Patet quia omne veniale est contra rectam rationem agere contra rectam rationeÌ„ est agere contra legem naturalem precipientem non esse à regula rectae rationis deuiandum Euery sinne veniall is the transgression of some law This is cleere because euery veniall sinne is against right reason and to doe against right reason is to doe against the law of nature which commaundeth vs not to depart or swarue from the rule of right reason Loe euery veniall sinne is against right reason and against the law of nature which is giuen to euery one in his creation in his birth or natiuitie Fourthly because Durandus another famous papist confuteth the late receiued popish opinion of Thomas Aquinas which the Pope and his Iesuits hold to wit that veniall sinnes are preter legem non contra Besides the law but not against the law These are Duâ—ands owne words Ad argumentum dicendum quod omne peccatum est contra legem dei naturalem vel inspiratam vel ab eis deriuatam To the argument answere must be made that euery sinne is against the law of God either naturall or inspired or deriued from them And this opinion of M. Durand is this day commonly defended in the popish vniuersities and schooles So saith Frier Ioseph these are his words D. Thomas eius sectatores tenent peccatum veniale non tam esse contra legem quam preter legem Sequitur Durandus tamen alij permulti hanc sententiam impugnant affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata Et haec opinio modo in scbolis videtur communior S. Thomas and his followers hold that a veniall sinne is not so much against the law as besides the law But Durand and many others impugne this opinion auouching veniall sinnes to be against the commaundements And this opinion seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles Here I wish the reader to note by the way out of the word modo now adaies the mutabilitie of Romish religion For in that he saith modo now adaies he giueth vs to vnderstand that their doctrine is now otherwise than it was of old and in former ages A note worthie to be remembred For the old Romane religion was catholicke pure and sound and with it doe not I contend but I impugne late Romish faith and doctrine which the Pope and his Romish Schoole-men haue brought into the Church Fiftly because their canonized martyr Iohn Fisher the late bishop of Rochester teacheth the same doctrine so plainely as euery child must needs perceiue the truth in that behalfe These are his expresse words Quod peccatum veniale solum ex dei misericordia veniale sit in hoc tecum sentio That a veniall sinne is onely veniall through the mercie of God and not of it owne nature therein doe I agree vnto you Thus saith our bishop And as he telleth me that he agreeth with Luther therein so doe I tell our Iesuites that I agree with him with Durand Almaine and the other papists that teach the same doctrine Sixtly because Gerson another famous popish writer holdeth the same opinion These are his expresse words Nulla offensa dei est venialis de se nisi tantum modo per respectum ad diuinam misericordiam qui non vult de facto quamlibet offensam imputare ad mortem cum illud posset iustissimè Et ita concluditur quod peccatum mortale veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsecè essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad diuinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat ad poenam mortis aliud non No offence of God is veniall of it owne nature but onely in respect of Gods mercie who will not de facto imputa euery offence to death though he might doe it most iustly And